What a wasted opportunity. Gopnik is so much more interested in telling us why he thinks Warhol is great and not why he's important or influential, causing this whole book to feel less like a history and more like a defense.
Gopnik is an art critic and not a historian. Well, if ever there were an example of how telling history is, in fact, a skill that requires training and technique, this would be it.
I'm really just overwhelmed with a sense of emptiness after finishing this book. Warhol seemed to genuinely believe in nothing and stand for nothing. I have no idea what Gopnik was celebrating, and have no better insight into the art world that surrounded, influenced, and was influenced by Warhol because Gopnik wasn't interested in exploring that. He just wants us to think Warhol was some kind of troubled genius.
Like, Gopnik equivocates every time he mentions something that reflects poorly on Warhol. He downplays Warhol's actual stalking of Truman Capote, for example. Like he seems to treat it as a quirk more than anything. And there are other things, like this one passage to the effect, "He said he wished he was there to film a friend's death, but to be fair he also said he wished someone would have filmed his own attempted assassination." And Warhol's shorting or downright not paying his factory workers is brushed aside with "Well, nobody thought they were in it for the money."
In general as regards Warhol's art, Gopnik keeps saying things like "Everyone thought Warhol's art was lazy and bad and sucked, but sophisticated critics understood that it was SUPPOSED to be lazy and bad and suck."
Also: the trans women involved in the factory scene only get ONE cordoned off chapter? Are you kidding me? And with really weird wishy washy terminology to describe them. He often uses the word "transgendered," which might be just be him not keeping up with the latest terms (no severe foul there), but then this wasn't written that long ago. And I have no idea how someone who knows what the term "cisnormative" means and uses the right pronouns for trans women can then turn around and also describe trans women as "men who want to be women." It speaks to a lack of understanding of the queer culture that surrounded Warhol, which makes me very suspicious of Gopnik's perspective.
And it ends with the infuriating claim that he was as much of a genius as artists like Rembrandt or Picasso. At best he was only as much of an asshole as those two.